|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/10/2004 02:20:37 AM · #76 |
Olyuzi, would you mind toning down the bold? It's hard to read.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
06/10/2004 03:03:37 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by WebHorn:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Price fixing, price gouging, collusion to fix markets, or forcing a product on customers and other dubious business practices are what defeat the competetion. Your ideas are wonderful ideologies, but do not seem to be the common practice of many of the big companies. I would be happy to go to the competition for a product, but most often in today's markets there really isn't much choice. Many companies are subsidiaries of other major corporations. An example would be Clear Channel in radio, which now owns a major percentage of the airwave licenses for many different markets in the nation. They have also given lots of money to politicians so that laws get passed for their benefit. Competition is dwindling in this country and fast. |
Then pay for XM or Sirris radio and bypass them. |
The airwaves belong to the people and the broadcast companies license out those frequencies for a specified period of time. There is no reason why I should have to pay for XM or Sirrus when Clear Channel is buying up most of the licenses, broadcasting crappy programming that has nothing to do with the local communities that they are supposed to serve. Their programming is the same whether you listen in an urban area or rural area. Besides, they are big contributors to politicians to to get legislation for their benefit. |
All I can say to that is that you are obviously in the minority and most people do not agree with you or do not care, otherwise Clear Channel would not have been able to grow and be as successful. Remember they are only delivering what the Market and the People demand - companies don't just sprout in someone's garage, make a bunch of campaign contributions, and dominate the Market. They get there by giving people what they want. The fact that they are big contributors is IRRELEVANT because companies don't vote, people do. Vote your bad politician out of office if you don't like the laws they are passing! |
|
|
|
06/10/2004 03:18:45 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The poor have lifestyles? You mean lifestyles like the rich and famous? Give me a break, man! The benefit of becoming rich will become overburdened??? You have to be kidding me here. Poor joke, at that. Awww...the poor rich people overburdened by the poor...Yeah, right. |
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury."
-- Alexander Tytler
Some rich people didn't earn their money. Lots of them did. Regardless, it is THEIR MONEY and they deserve to use it and enjoy it as they see fit. If *I* got rich by luck, hard work, or persistance, and my Government decided to penalize my success by redistributing my income to people who were less fortunate, hard working, or "just needed it" I would consider that highly unfair and would move my money somewhere that it wasn't in jepordy.
This is what is happening in America today...fortunately our skilled work force, opportunity, and the fact the most of the rest of the world is somehow worse than we are is keeping money within our shores. But if we continue to put the vise on the rich, we will see an exodus of money from this country, and we will all suffer. |
|
|
|
06/10/2004 03:29:39 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Tell all the unemployed people in this country they have a choice. Guess you're another one who thinks that the reason people don't work is because they're lazy. |
Please, I don't need a lesson. The fact is, *I* was unemployed a few years ago for several months. I know how it is, and it sucks. However being unemployed and now working at a great job has allowed me to grow and get a better perspective. Part of being employed is luck, and the rest is skills, persistance, networking, and attitude.
I decided early on in my unemployment that I had a "drop dead date" that I would need to find my ideal job by before falling back to plan B. I decided that I would minimize the luck factor in my equation and take responsibility for my search. I won't go into everything I did but I went above and beyond what most people do in search of a job and we very persistant. In the end, I manufactured my own luck and got a great job with a great company. If I hadn't found it, I would have fallen back on Starbucks or some other service industry job and adjusted my skillset, strategy, and lifestyle to suit. Unfortunately I know many people who aren't willing to take similar measures.
I know of "HTML Programmers" who in the height of the bubble were making close to 6 figures. Of course they are all out of work now or are doing something completely different. Some adjusted their skills to work with databases or different langauges. Others whined and were drawing unemployement for as long as possible.
I don't think Americans are lazy. That is too strong. I do believe that many Americans are not willing to be flexible enough in a changing Market, downsize their lifestyle to their (lack of) income, or upgrade their skillsets. You can always find a job somewhere doing something. I stand by my statement that unemployment is, for the majority, by choice. |
|
|
|
06/10/2004 08:03:30 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The benefit of becoming rich will become overburdened???
|
This has happened in the past in the UK. Taxation at certain income brackets reached 98%
The people earning at those levels simply left the country, moving their businesses offshore. This is not the best interest of any sector of the society, rich or poor. |
I would like to see the details of that and see just how many left. Also, was it the businesses or the individuals who were taxed so high. Plus, what was the overall tax rate. In the overall scheme of things, when other factors are considered, such as subsidies given to many different industries; tax breaks and loopholes taken advantage of, corruptoin and public funds going to pay for things like research and construction of stadiums and the like, I think the rich come out on a very positive side.
|
It was individuals that were taxed at 98%. Frankly, if you don't believe that paying 98% of any part of your income (even above a certain threshold) to the government isn't an incentive to leave the country then you are just ignoring reality. I personally know several people who did just up and leave. The fiscal policies of the last real socialist government in the UK crippled the economy, largely by attacking the more wealthy sectors of society in the late 1970s.
... In 1974 Denis Healey, who had declared that he would 'squeeze the rich until the pips squeaked', increased the top rate of income tax to 98%, an even higher rate than during the 1939-45 war. It contrasts sharply with the top rate of 40% since 1988, which has brought in more revenue by attracting business to the UK and reducing avoidance and evasion...
...does not go back as far as 1971, when a clause in Dennis Healey̢۪s Finance Bill of that year introduced what is effectively deemed domicile for income tax and CGT. Given that the marginal rates of income tax in that year were 83% for earned and 98% for unearned income, the furore this proposal engendered, with major multi national companies threatening to withdraw their executives...
All of this is well documented.
The reality is that you need to tax the normal wage earners higher if you want to provide for the lower earners, rather than focusing on the higher earners.
//shelburne.butterworths.co.uk/accountancydirect/dataitem.asp?id=40621&database=2
One of Denis Healey’s conclusions on inequality is that ‘any substantial attempt to improve the lot of the poorest section of the population must now be at the expense of the average man and woman’. This means that there would have to be unpopular tax changes.
Message edited by author 2004-06-10 08:51:59.
|
|
|
|
06/10/2004 08:51:20 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by WebHorn:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The airwaves belong to the people and the broadcast companies license out those frequencies for a specified period of time. There is no reason why I should have to pay for XM or Sirrus when Clear Channel is buying up most of the licenses, broadcasting crappy programming that has nothing to do with the local communities that they are supposed to serve. Their programming is the same whether you listen in an urban area or rural area. Besides, they are big contributors to politicians to to get legislation for their benefit. |
All I can say to that is that you are obviously in the minority and most people do not agree with you or do not care, otherwise Clear Channel would not have been able to grow and be as successful. Remember they are only delivering what the Market and the People demand - companies don't just sprout in someone's garage, make a bunch of campaign contributions, and dominate the Market. They get there by giving people what they want. The fact that they are big contributors is IRRELEVANT because companies don't vote, people do. Vote your bad politician out of office if you don't like the laws they are passing! |
I really don't understand how you can make such a statement, Paul. First, how can you say that Clear Channel is delivering what the people want and demand? My understanding of their business practices is that they decide what to play based on payola and payoffs they get from the record companies. They could care less what the local communities want to hear, they push whatever the record companies can afford to pay for.
Also, I am not in the minority as just this year attempts to further change the FCC regulations pushed by Chairman Michale Powell (son of the sec of state) was soundly defeated because the public got wind of these changes and other vice-chairpersons demanded that public comment and hearings be held. When the public gets notice of the consolidation deregulations that these people want to push through, they rise up and put a stop to it.
Yes, in this case, the radio industry overnight was changed so that just a few companies came to dominate the airwaves. This was due to legislation that was passed in 1996 called the Telecommunicatios Act which deregulated the industry allowing for greatly reduced limits of ownership of stations in local and regional areas, as well as, nationwide. Now, just two companies dominate the radio market. The dissappearance of independent media outlets have increased to the point where they are almost non-existent. At the same time, the rate of corporate donations from the telecommunications industry to politicians and members of Congress has increased 300% since 1995. Also, the cost of purchasing a FCC license has increased to $500,000. This does not bode well for democracy as an informed public is needed to vote out the "bad politicians." Hardly a recipe for competition in the marketplace.
Message edited by author 2004-06-10 10:18:06. |
|
|
|
06/10/2004 09:25:01 AM · #82 |
Gordon, I'm not advocating providing of relief for the poorest of the population, although in some instances it may be necessary. Besides, welfare for the poor is already dead in the US. I am looking at the corruption and criminal activities of the biggest corporations, as well as, the "wealthfare" policies that these corporations are getting from government officials that they are also contributing to. A quote from a 1996 book titled: Take the Rich Off Welfare- by Zepezauer and Naiman:
"...the money we hand out to corporations and wealthy individuals costs at least $448 Billion a year." They go on to point out that this is an underestimate and that it was over 3 times the amount of money that this country was spending on relief for the poor.
At the same time, public funds should not be used for private programs and projects that benefit the wealthy predominantly, such as stadium contruction.
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
The benefit of becoming rich will become overburdened???
|
This has happened in the past in the UK. Taxation at certain income brackets reached 98%
The people earning at those levels simply left the country, moving their businesses offshore. This is not the best interest of any sector of the society, rich or poor. |
I would like to see the details of that and see just how many left. Also, was it the businesses or the individuals who were taxed so high. Plus, what was the overall tax rate. In the overall scheme of things, when other factors are considered, such as subsidies given to many different industries; tax breaks and loopholes taken advantage of, corruptoin and public funds going to pay for things like research and construction of stadiums and the like, I think the rich come out on a very positive side.
|
It was individuals that were taxed at 98%. Frankly, if you don't believe that paying 98% of any part of your income (even above a certain threshold) to the government isn't an incentive to leave the country then you are just ignoring reality. I personally know several people who did just up and leave. The fiscal policies of the last real socialist government in the UK crippled the economy, largely by attacking the more wealthy sectors of society in the late 1970s.
... In 1974 Denis Healey, who had declared that he would 'squeeze the rich until the pips squeaked', increased the top rate of income tax to 98%, an even higher rate than during the 1939-45 war. It contrasts sharply with the top rate of 40% since 1988, which has brought in more revenue by attracting business to the UK and reducing avoidance and evasion...
...does not go back as far as 1971, when a clause in Dennis Healey̢۪s Finance Bill of that year introduced what is effectively deemed domicile for income tax and CGT. Given that the marginal rates of income tax in that year were 83% for earned and 98% for unearned income, the furore this proposal engendered, with major multi national companies threatening to withdraw their executives...
All of this is well documented.
The reality is that you need to tax the normal wage earners higher if you want to provide for the lower earners, rather than focusing on the higher earners.
//shelburne.butterworths.co.uk/accountancydirect/dataitem.asp?id=40621&database=2
One of Denis Healey’s conclusions on inequality is that ‘any substantial attempt to improve the lot of the poorest section of the population must now be at the expense of the average man and woman’. This means that there would have to be unpopular tax changes. |
Message edited by author 2004-06-10 10:29:49. |
|
|
|
06/10/2004 11:32:35 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by Olyuzi:
"...the money we hand out to corporations and wealthy individuals costs at least $448 Billion a year." They go on to point out that this is an underestimate and that it was over 3 times the amount of money that this country was spending on relief for the poor. |
How much would it cost this country if those companies whent out of business or were forced to go completly offf shore?
I'm against the large size or more so the frequency, but sometimes those bailouts and corp welfairs are required. The airplane industry bailouts for example are great. Yes it cost us probably somewhere in the low billions, but imagin what would have happened if a couple of them went out of business, such as United and Delta? Billions more would have been lost.
BTW: dollar for dollar I bet there is a better payoff for Corp Welfair than regular welfair... But I'm only guesstimating...
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/15/2025 05:05:14 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/15/2025 05:05:14 PM EDT.
|
